The Libertarian Defense Caucus

Romney on GOP side; while also backing Gary Johnson as a Libertarian

By National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson

In regards to recent discussions of the Libertarian Defense Caucus endorsing in the GOP primary, I was thinking Mitt Romney might be the best bet. He is good on Israel.  He is more electable than Newt Gingrich; and if elected, more competent. 

I believe Romney’s support for Israel is sincere (probably because he identifies Jews as a persecuted minority like Mormons), and he has called for standing strong against Israel’s enemies.

Unfortunaely, both Gingrich and Romney oppose medical marijuana, but Gingrich really believes what he is saying and would radically escalate the War on Drugs; while Romney might change his position once elected and has not called for an escalation.

This is relevant to foreign policy, because the War on Drugs subsidizes Islamism through the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Gingrich has taken a number of Rockefeller positions and is left of center on domestic policy. His personality is not suited to management, and is prone to over-evaluate his intellectual abilities. Where he is wrong, he is strong; where he is right, he is weak. He is prone to harshly judge others for the same behavior to which he is prone.

Unfortunately there is no viable alternative to Romney for the GOP nominee.

Wayne Root told us at last summer’s Liberty Camp-Georgia that he would not run this year so that he does not take votes away from the GOP nominee. If Obama wins again, or the GOP candidate messes up, Wayne is open to running for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Since the Libertarian Defense Caucus is loosely affiliated with the Libertarian Party, 
I think we ought to also endorse Gary Johnson for the LP nomination. He won’t take many votes so isn’t likely to do much harm, while still representing the LP respectably. 

Kevin Bjornson lives in Seattle.  He joined the Society for Rational Individualism in 1968 and the Libertarian Caucus of YAF in 1969, and has served in numerous capacities in the Libertarian Party of Washington.  Currently he serves as co-chair of the Libertarian Defense Caucus.

Disclaimers:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Those caucus members endorsing other presidential candidates, those members opposed to a Romney presidency, or those who are not endorsing any candidate, may compose their own piece and submit it to the caucus editorial board.

By Scott Lieberman

As Morton Blackwell says  ”You don’t win elections with your principles.  You win elections for your principles”.
 
This past weekend the Pragmatarian wing of the Libertarian National Committee did a good job of redirecting the priorities of the Libertarian Party in the direction of electing Libertarians to public office, as compared to our 40 year history of mostly macho flashing our way to 3% of the vote in Congressional elections.
 
Over the next 5 years, myself and a number of other Libertarian Party activists are going to try to elect as many Libertarians as possible to local, mostly non-partisan offices.  We will be using our State Legislature and Congressional candidates as RINO killers in general elections.
 
 
  Scott Lieberman is a distinguished Regional Alternate,  Libertarian National Committee ( California ). He is also a distinguished member of The Libertarian Defense Caucus.
 
 Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By LDC National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson

“Terrorism” is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political purposes.
Terrorism is always unjustified, no matter what the purpose or political goal.

Yet the Norwegian government justifies terrorism against
Israelis, while not wanting to be on the receiving end.

 ”Collateral damage” means, civilians who are inadvertantly killed or hurt
because they are in the vicinity of a war target. Collateral damage is inevitable in any armed conflict, whether invasion, defense against invasion, or rebellion.

Western militaries generally do not target civilians. During WWII, cities with military value were targeted, and many civilians died.

Though that technique has been out of favor for many years,
and collateral damage has decreased over the years as targeting and technology have improved.

Americans during the Revolutionary War did not target British
civilians or Americans with Tory sympathies. After the war,
there was no inquisition of Tories. In contrast, the French
Revolution did have a reign of terror after the monarchy
was overthrown. Edmund Burke, the father of modern
conservative libertarianism, supported the American but
denounced the French revolution.

Burke’s “Vindication of Natural Society” was an anthem
for humanism and liberty, pointing out that the two are
mutually reinforcing. As Burke pointed out, most wars in history were triggered by religious differences. Later, Ayn Rand pointed out (in Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World),that faith and force are mutually reinforcing and natural allies.

The Christian Crusaders, whom Anders (in his video) held up as role models, were Christian terrorists. They sacked Constantinople,enabling the later conquest by Muslims; and attacked non-Christians generally, without regard to their individual guilt or innocence.

Fortunately the Renaissance and Enlightenment have moderated
Christian terrorism; unfortunately a similar process has not
occurred in Islam.

Later, Burke did seem to presage Austrian economics in his
deference to the utility of tradition. Such traditions have evolutionary value, and no one person or small group may safely overthrow the habits of thought and action that developed over centuries.

The inevitably of collateral damage does provide empirical
support to this caution against radical or revolutionary change brought about at bayonet point. Most governments exhibit a degree of aggression, from tax theft to over regulation to outright campaigns of extermination. Resources are limited, and human nature is similarly limited. The harm caused by any particular government ought to be weighed against the harm caused by invasion or revolution.

The bizarre case of Anders Breivik does raise the question,
are the evils of the Norwegian govenrment sufficient
to warrant revolution? And if yes, what type of revolution?

Anders was allegedly vexed over Muslim immigration and
multi-culturalism in Norway. Of course, in Saudi Arabia
and most parts of Dar al-Islam, there is no such multi-culturalism.

Rather, there is Islamic mono-culture. So, to favor multiculturalism in areas where Islam is not dominant, while tolerating mono- culturalism where Islam is dominant, creates a one-way ratchet.

Once an area has been conquered by Islam, it can never change course.

While in areas not yet conquered by Islam, non-Islamic culture dies by
a thousand cuts–induced by high rates of Muslim-on-infidel aggression, including welfarism, theft, rape, assault, and murder. Which explains how previously non-Islamic Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc., now have (close to) Islamic mono-culture.

Just to give you a taste of what Norwegians are forced to deal with, about 80% of all rapes and virtually 100% of stranger-rapes there are Muslim-on-infidel. Muslim immigrants tend to not assimilate, and social costs in education, health, and welfare are much higher than for natives.

There are some restrictions on free speech in Norway,
but if you’re careful, you can still criticize Islam. The Wilders trial in Holland seemed to draw a line, you can criticize Islam but not Muslims as a group.

Norway is generally free, relative to the rest of the world.
In any event, disgruntled Norwegians are free to migrate to
Iceland, as a few brave Norwegians did 1000 years ago. 
So no, revolution in Norway is not justified. Even if it were, that still does not justify the massacre of teenagers at a Labor party political training camp. Those students have not yet committed aggression, and not all will do so.

Similarly, Anders’  car bomb outside the Prime Minister’s
office caused death and injury to nearby civilians and and
destruction of their property. The greater the collateral damage, the higher the bar ought to be before revolution can be justified.

If Anders had limited his direct action to a few government
officials directly tied to aggression, there wouldn’t have
been such an outcry. Confronting them on the street,
one-on-one, wouldn’t have been very difficult.

So much for the ostensible motivations for Anders’ terrorism. Now let us examine his real motivations.

A few have noted the apparent inconsistency of justifying an
attack on mostly native Norwegians, by criticism of Muslims.
True, the Labor party is pandering to Muslims by allowing
them to immigrate in large numbers, and subsidizing them to court their votes. That the Labor party was his primary target,does seem to belie his alleged focus on Muslims.

Both Anders’ parents were staunch Labor party members.
His father actually worked for Labor governments,
as an economic analyst in their embassies. His father
left the home at Anders’ age one. This means, Anders
parents were not good role models for a successful
male-female bonding and stable family life.

Anders had no success getting girlfriends, despite his
good looks and ability to raise substantial sums of money.
Like some other “martyrs” about to die, he hired call-girls 
shortly before his attacks.

He even mused about self-castration, in order to prove
bona fides to Al Qaeda, from whom  he would obtain
WMD with which to attack Norwegians. Getting help
from Jihadists to slaughter infidels, is not what counter-
Jihadism is about.

His use of steroids and posing in a Seals-type outfit,
complete with machine gun, does seem over-the-top macho.

Anders imagines the good that Hitler would have done,
had he not been anti-Jewish. Anders praises various
neo-nazi groups, some of whom have de-emphasized
their traditional anti-Jewishness. That’s an easy switch to make, 
now that 6 million European Jews have been eliminated.

Anders main resentment is against the Labor party.
His purported ideological justifications don’t add up.

Anders misquoted J. S. Mill, which indicates he got the
quote from a “famous quotes” website and not from actually reading On Liberty. He claims to like pro-industrial Ayn Rand, but plagiarizes from the Unabomber’s anti-industrial manifesto. He endorses both the Christian Crusaders and firmly atheistic Rand; selfless martyrdom, but also anti-altruistic Rand. And so on.

His anti-Jihadism is another mask, like his Freemason
outfit and his police uniform. He didn’t graduate from college,but claims college degree equivalency through self-study. His sexual and intellectual insecurities have led him to cover up his own inadaquecy in those departments.

Just as policemen should not be maligned because
Anders wore their uniform, neither should libertarians
or anti-Jihadists feel he is one of us. 

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By Libertarian Defense Caucus Special Columnist Wayne Allen Root.

Our Friend John Hospers Passes Away

I have sad news to report…John Hospers, the very first Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1972, has passed away. John was 93. Because of our close friendship, I was asked to announce his death to the LP and his many fans and supporters.
 
John passed quietly away in his sleep, on Sunday morning June 12 without pain and suffering, of natural causes. He died only 3 days after his 93rd birthday.

He was a true friend of individual liberty and freedom.

A sad day for all. But a devastatingly sad for me, because John was a true friend to me as well. I spoke to John often. He was a trusted political advisor and confidant. And in his last years, when he was in the hospital, his friends always asked if I could cheer him up with a call. I came to enjoy those calls. John was my personal “Tuesday with Morrie.”

He was the sweetest man alive, and a very loyal friend of mine. He will be greatly missed by all. The Libertarian movement has lost a pioneer and hero.

I send my condolences to the Hospers family.

And I wish a lifetime in heaven for John.

God Bless,
Wayne Allyn Root

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By Kevin Bjornson.

The principles of natural justice (Jus Naturale) are discoverable through
conscience and reason. This natural law applies to all natural persons,
in all places and for all time. The world will choose between natural
law and sharia law.

We know through observation that all existing governments are flawed.
Created to protect rights, these guard dogs often revert to wolf-like
behavior, stealing from and assaulting those they are supposed to
protect. This means, all existing governments should be reformed
or replaced. Yet there are not enough resources to do all that needs
to be done, all at once.

Not all governments are equivalent. Some are worse than others.
Governments that are reforming toward freedom, should be applauded,
rather than overthrown. Governments that are most threatening,
should be top of the list for abolition.

Bad people who reform, should be applauded for their good actions.
If instead they were punished for not coming close enough to good,
that would tend to push them away, back toward evil.

Gadhafii decided to dismantle his nuclear weapons program after
he saw Bush depose Saddam over that very issue (among other
issues). He also paid blood money to atone for his previous
terrorism. One of his sons even studied Austrian economics.
These kinds of good actions earn him respect and a seat at the
table of nations, with diplomatic relations and trade.

In contrast, the mad mullahs of Iran, after a temporary pause
about the same time (after the Iraq invasion), are proceeding at
full speed in pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iran government
is more powerful than Gadhaffi’s, and currently supports an
extensive network of terrorists, including agents helping to
kill American soldiers in Iraq.

The crazy dicatator of N. Korea kills millions of his own
people in a government-induced famine, due to their extreme
communism and international isolation. Yet we bargain with
them, to give them more aid.

The Islamist regime in Pakistan presides over a holocaust
of non-Muslims, expands it’s nuclear arsenal, imprisons an
American who resists an armed assault, and continues turning
a blind eye to (or even supporting) terrorists in Afghanistan
and Kashmir. Yet they still receive US aid.

The message this sends is, if you’re anti-American enough
and powerful enough, you get a pass. If you reform and try
to work with the west, and you’re not very strong militarily,
you will be deposed by the west.

Whatever is rewarded, we will tend to see more of.
Whatever is punished, we will tend to see less of.
The end result in Libya and Egypt will be sharia law and
dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood. The result in
Iran and N. Korea will be more of the same. Trust and
belief in America are plumetting, our enemies are
strengthening.

There is something wrong with this picture.

Kevin Bjornson is the National Co – Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus. He is considered one of the foremost libertarian intellectuals in the nation.

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Libertarian Defense Caucus National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson penned this response to LP Executive Director Wes Benedict’s intellectually dishonest “Cut and Run” communique. The full text of Benedict’s bizarre and baseless rantings follows Co – Chairman Bjornson’s response:

Fellow libertarians–

After a temporary lull in hostilities,  LP director
Wes Benedict has once again declared war on
history, common sense, and liberty.

Reagan’s method and purpose of deploying
US Marines in Lebanon was misguided. They
were lightly armed, bunched together in a
readily-accessible barracks, and given no clear
mission. The phrase “peace keeping” is not a
substitute for strategy, and certainly they were
not tasked with attacking Jihadists.

Lebanon’s Christian minority, which was once a
majority, was largely middle-class and built Lebanon
into what was a “Switzerland of the middle east”.
That was before Islamists tore their country apart,
through bombs, murder, robbery, and sexual assault.

The US could have charged the Lebanese infidels,
or neighboring Israel, for protection services. That
would have been an option in a libertarian foreign
policy–but apparently not the “non-interventionist”
foreign policy of Rothbardites.

That being said, the US withdrawal sent a wrong
signal to our enemies. We were “punked” and
simply withdrew. That was a reward to Jihadists.
They attacked us, and got what they wanted.
Whatever is rewarded, we will tend to see more of.

If rewarded, Jihadist demands will keep escalating.
Their ideology commands nothing less than world
domination. They have a bloody history–going
back well before the US was born and before Europe
was a world power.  Before the Enlightenment gave
the west the edge, Islamist Barbary coast pirates
would raid Europe’s coastal cities, for plunder and slaves;
until the US navy under Jefferson, the British navy,
and French forces, defeated them.

How to deal with Jihadism, is a matter for debate within
the libertarian movement and party. For one faction
to seize control (by showing up at national conventions),
and then proclaim that their plan is the only one possible
for libertarians, is false and misleading.

We cannot assume that US defense costs would fall,
if all US forces were withdrawn to within US borders.
Fighting a war on US soil, would be enormously
expensive to US infrastructure, and result in US
civilian deaths. Not being able to project US power
into the foreign sanctuaries of Jihadists, would force
us into passivity, having to defend every possible
target all the time. Instead of choosing the time and
place of conflict.

If the US adopted Wes’ foreign policy,
US military and war costs would skyrocket.
There are ways of financing and privatizing
the US military, which Wes has been made
aware of, but chooses to ignore.

Further, we pledge that if libertarian hawks were to
become the majority faction at LP conventions,
we would not abuse our position of power by
mis-representing our foreign policy views as the only
ones possible under libertarianism. That much is
required by intellectual honesty.

We would welcome libertarian doves for other reasons.
By running only doves in political contests, the LP would
tend to siphon votes disproportionately from the Democrat
party base, which is also dovish. Under current leadership,
the LP is simply a minor shill for Republicans, who have
shown that they are not serious about either liberty or
effective counter-Jihadism.

Consequently, the Libertarian Defense Caucus calls for
the replacement of LP director Wes Benedict and LP chair
Mark Hinkle

The full text of Mr. Benedict’s “Cut and Run” screed:

February 28, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty,

In the Middle East, it’s time to cut and run like Ronald Reagan did in 1984.

In 1982, President Reagan ordered American Marines into Lebanon as part of a “multinational peacekeeping force.” In 1983, there were several bombings targeting Americans in Lebanon, including the well-known Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.

At first, Reagan insisted that the U.S. would keep military forces in Lebanon. But in February 1984, he changed course and ordered a complete troop withdrawal.

The following is from Reagan’s autobiography:

Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
I think our government would be well-advised to think about that quote before they stick their nose into Egypt, Libya, and other Middle Eastern countries in turmoil right now.

I applaud Reagan’s decision to withdraw from Lebanon, and I call on President Obama to follow his example by withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the greater Middle East.

Even though many Arabs hated the American intervention in Lebanon, it’s important to remember that Reagan’s withdrawal did not result in terrorist attacks in America. It did not result in a spreading takeover of Middle Eastern governments by terrorist groups. What it did was stop further American casualties, and allow for a reduction in military spending.

It was foolish and wrong for Reagan to send American troops into Lebanon, but it was good that Reagan was able to recognize his mistake and withdraw those troops.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, President George W. Bush’s pride and stubbornness prevented him from following Reagan’s example. Unfortunately, President Obama has shown that same pride and stubbornness so far.

A withdrawal might cause President Obama to lose face, but it would save many American lives, and it would help save our economy as well.

Many people say “cut and run” as if it were cowardly or idiotic, but that may not be accurate. Apparently the term comes from navigation, when in dire circumstances a ship’s captain might quickly cut the anchor line, raise sail, and “run” before the wind. You lose the anchor, but you save the ship.

I am so frustrated. Sometimes I think we’re spending a trillion dollars and wasting thousands of lives in the Middle East just because politicians are scared of the words “cut and run.”

But I say that’s exactly what we should do: cut and run.

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By National Caucus Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson

The Libertarian Defense Caucus stands in solidarity with Russian people, culture, and defense forces against the horrific terrorist attack at the Moscow airport. An attack which murdered dozens, and maimed scores more.

Let us speak the name of this terror: Islamic Jihad.
Let us make these declarations:

–America and Russia should be allies in this struggle to reverse the spread of Islamist aggression; much as Rome and Byzantium upheld civilization against barbarians.

–America should cooperate by extraditing to Russia, those who are wanted for aiding terrorists and who now have sanctuary in the US. In particular, Imad A. Ahmad of the Islamic-American Zakat foundation, which has supplied terrorists in Chechnya.

*–NATO should expel Turkey because it seeks to restore the caliphate by alliance with terrorists, including those now attacking Russia.

*–Russia should be invited to apply for NATO membership,
and resume it’s rightful place as an heir to Byzantium.

* The Caucus holds no official position on the admittance of Russia into NATO nor the expulsion of Turkey from the alliance.

The guiding principle of the Caucus is that all member nation-states should be held to the highest ideals of republican governance.

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Hi, many of you are longtime foes of mine.  That’s fine.  I wanted to point your attention to an editorial by my friend in the Australia Libertarian movement James Fryar over at Worldwide Liberty, “AntiWar vs. Pro-Defense Libertarians.”  Jim asks pointedly of the AntiWar faction of the libertarian movement:
 
“We don’t ask the AntiWar swabs to go over there and fight. But at least, they can offer moral support”
And Jim is correct.  We Pro-Defense libertarians understand fully that you all hate the Military, and are opposed to all Wars.  But surely your opposition to Defense can not include support for Islamo-Fascism and Sharia Law? 
 
No doubt most of you have been witness to the gross atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians, all across South Asia, Africa and the Middle East these past few weeks and months.  You’ve seen the stories, as Clifford May of National Review points out:
 
Christian churches have been bombed in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, and the Philippines. In Indonesia a mob of 1,000 Muslims burned down two Christian churches because, according to one commentator, local Islamic authorities determined there were “too many faithful and too many prayers.” In Iran, scores of Christians have been arrested. In Pakistan, a Christian woman received the death penalty for the “crime” of insulting Islam; the governor of Punjab promised to pardon her — and was then assassinated for the “crime” of blasphemy.

And that’s only half the story.  In Europe, in the UK, Pakistani men are raping young British girls, because they “dress like sluts.”  In Denmark, they are attacking the headquarters of the newspaper that publishes cartoons mocking Muhammed.  In Sweden an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist tried to blow up hundreds of Christmas shoppers in downtown Stockholm. 
 
In Uganda and Tanzania, Muslim groups are pressuring the governments to declare homosexuality illegal, punishable by life in prison, or even execution.  In Somalia, music has been completely banned, and women are not permitted to work outside the home.  The very latest; if they get caught shaking the hands of a non-relative male, they could be beheaded.
 
Surely, you all recognize how this conflicts enormously with libertarian values. 
 
We understand your position and your personal feelings prevents you all from wanting to do anything about it. 
 
But a compromise…
 
Why not let us Pro-Defense libertarians take the lead on this?
 
As Jim says, we don’t need you to join us in our call to arms.  But we sure as hell would like your moral support.
 
Isn’t that the least you can do?  Can you at least give us that?  Just an acknowledgement that Yes, Sharia Law sucks, and all libertarians, including leftwing libertarians are opposed to Sharia Law.  Further, if some libertarians want to fight back against Radical Islam, “mazeltof”; they are fully free to do so. 
 
You all don’t even do that.  You don’t even acknowledge the threat of Radical Islam.  You’ve got your heads in the sand, and are pretending it doesn’t even exist.
 
Okay, it’s overseas.  And I understand 99% of all non-interventionists are isolationists at heart and could really give an ‘F’ about what goes on in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, ect…
 
Fine.
 
But what about Creeping Sharia here in the United States:
 
1. A restaurant in Nashville, TN was prevented from opening up a bar in the facility cause the Mosque across the street objected to the city council.
 
2. In Hamtramck, Michigan the Muslim call to prayer blares from speakers outside of 4 different Mosques in the tiny hamlet 5 times a day, despite the pleas of local residents, and the Chamber of Commerce, small businessman that its preventing outsiders from coming into town.
 
3. In North Philadelphia the city has prevented any new liquor stores from opening up because of objections from the Muslim community.
 
4. In Wisconsin a publicly-subsidized Pre-School, part of the Head Start program, just eliminated secular Christmas celebrations and banned Santa Claus, cause of objections of Muslim attendees. 
 
5. Corporations across the U.S. are now being sued by CAIR in federal court, and pressured by Muslim groups to be “Sharia compliant.” 
 
6. A group of Christian pastors were arrested at a Fair in suburban Detroit last summer for handing out pamplets praising Jesus on a public sidewalk.  They were surrounded by 8 squad cars full of cops. 
 
C’mon you all.  Surely you can agree with the Pro-Defense wing of the libertarian movement, that these examples are completely contrary to libertarian principles and should be opposed. 
 
All we’re asking in the Pro-Defense wing is that you acknowledge that Sharia Law is a threat to Liberty, and that you occasionally lend us Pro-Defensers your moral support.
 
Something along the lines of: “While we do not advocate foreign intervention to stop Radical Islam, we do recognize it as a threat to libertarian values, and acknowledge that those private efforts of some libertarians who want to fight back, are legitimate.”
 
We’re asking for compromise.  Can you please meet us half-way? 
 
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
 
Member, Libertarian Defense Caucus since 1985
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul 1997-2003
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, Travel Aide, 1987/88
Fmr. Libertarian National Committee mbr.
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus.
 
Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.
 
 
 
 
 
 

    Libertarian Defense Caucus National Co – Chairman, Mr. Kevin Bjornson, fired back at LP Executive Director Wes Benedict’s and LP National Chairman Mark Hinkle’s latest woefully misguided  missive.

    The rambling press release, although it should be noted that a press release has to in fact be covered by the press to be considered a press release, covered domestic and International affairs.

    Mr. Bjornson eviscerated the juvenile proclamations asserted in the LP release with the following eloquent response.

    The nearly incoherent original LP news release is incuded after Co- Chairman Bjornson’s response.

Dear fellow libertarians and other concerned persons,

Recently, those of us on the LP e-list received a press release
(appended below) which sets new records for bizarre language;
Benedict and Hinkle seem to have a suicide wish for the LP.

The “libertarian” proposal touted, is  that the US pull the plug
on both our foreign friends and retired Americans.

The unstated assumptions are, only government can provide
retirement/medical benefits, and taxes are necessary to
wage war. This flies in the face of liberty theory as well as
human history.

If social security benefits were simply dropped with no
free enterprise replacement, the results would be catastrophic.
Millions of retired Americans would be placed in mortal jeopardy,
and whoever did that would be crucified at the polls. Millions of
old Americans would roam the streets, almost like a scene out of
“Night of the Living Dead”. Need I remind these masochistic
gentlemen, the LP is a political party and should be about
proposing solutions most Americans will accept, instead of
framing libertarianism in the worst possible light.

Fortunately there is a libertarian way out of this mess.
The US has vast tracts of land, which could be traded to
insurance companies in exchange for their assuming
Social Security and Medicare liabilities. Benedict and
Hinkle oppose Social Security but offer no positive
solution–other than what would amount to a holocaust
of elderly Americans who have paid into the system
for decades and have planned their retirement accordingly.

The Libertarian Defense Caucus has proposed ways that
US defense could be privatized, or at least financed without
taxation. The protection of property rights of merchant
ships and oil infrastructure should not be treated as a
welfare benefit, but as normal ways of financing the
business of providing government services.

Even if we accept the tax financing of defense,
there is no assurance that retreating to within US borders
would save money. Does anybody seriously propose that
one side in a war may unilaterally declare the conflict over,
without victory and with the enemy unvanquished?
Costs to the US would sky-rocket under military isolationism,
as our enemies would then be free to attack us on US soil,
at times and places of their choosing. We would be in a
defensive mode, forced to defend every possible target.

Jihadists would continue to use nationalized oil and prohibition
to finance their Jihad, safe from attack in their foreign sanctuaries.
If we simply retreat, they will not reciprocate, but will view
that as weakness, and accelerate their terrorist attacks.

If not stopped, sooner or later Jihadists will acquire nuclear weapons.
US infrastructure will be set back by 100 years, and Israel
(with whom we enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship)
will be toast.

Benedict and Hinkle make a mockery of libertarianism.
Fortunately their press releases are ignored. Where has
this latest press release been published? Who is still
listening? Thanks to Dondero and Cristiano, my responses
are likely getting more coverage on the internet than their
messages. We should present libertarianism in the best
possible light, and not go out of our way to alienate
people generally and dissenting libertarians. That much
should be obvious; sadly, the LP is in need of adult supervision.

 Kevin Bjornson
Libertarian Defense Caucus.

WASHINGTON – With prospects of a Republican takeover of Congress, Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle posed this question: “In order to balance the budget, where will the GOP pull the plug first: on Granny, or on foreign wars?”

Hinkle continued, “Of course, Republicans may have no serious intention of cutting federal deficits or spending, and their complaints about ‘out-of-control spending’ might be hypocrisy.”

Over 60% of federal spending is in three areas: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military. It would be impossible to eliminate the federal deficit without cutting entitlements or military spending, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tea Party leader Dick Armey recently called Social Security a ponzi scheme.

LP Executive Director Wes Benedict said, “Social Security is universal mandatory welfare for seniors. It’s very un-libertarian.”

Benedict continued, “I suppose one way to maintain the Social Security scheme would be to rapidly grow the U.S. working population, such as by opening up our borders to increase immigration. However, Republican congressmen have tried to duck their responsibility for the bad economy by scapegoating illegal immigrants, so allowing a massive influx of immigrants is politically infeasible in the near future.

“Each child born in the U.S. immediately faces a debt of over $40,000. Ironically, it might not be long before American youth start ditching this debt foisted on them by their parents and grandparents, and start leaving America in search of better opportunity abroad.

“To make Social Security solvent as our population ages, the federal government either has to raise the tax, or cut the benefits. The last significant change to Social Security was a tax increase approved by Ronald Reagan. Libertarians favor cutting Social Security benefits, and we oppose tax increases. Libertarians would prefer to allow workers to opt out of Social Security. Perhaps entitlements can be cut gradually, rather than slashed abruptly, but that depends on taking action sooner rather than later.

“On the October 17 ‘Fox News Sunday,’ I saw that Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina was repeatedly asked what parts of entitlements she would cut to balance the budget, and she repeatedly dodged the question.”

The recent Republican ‘Pledge to America’ makes no mention of cutting entitlements or the military.

Benedict continued, “Republicans refuse to say where they would cut entitlement spending, and of course Republicans oppose cutting military spending or ending America’s foreign wars. Therefore, I’d say that Republicans are hypocrites who aren’t serious about solving the federal debt problem.”

A video lampooning John Boehner and the Republican ‘Pledge to America’ was created by Travis Irvine, Libertarian for U.S. Congress in Ohio District 12.

Benedict continued, “Only Libertarians recognize that we can’t have it all for much longer. The longer Republicans and Democrats flush money down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sooner the government will have to cut benefits for Granny. Of course, Congress may never have the courage to pass legislation to cut entitlements. In that scenario, Granny will eventually start experiencing ‘rolling blackouts,’ or perhaps a total system collapse.

“Libertarians stand ready to cut spending across the board. Perhaps the question Granny needs to answer is, ‘Which do you love more: your Social Security check, or foreign wars?’”

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

 Libertarian National Chairman Mark Hinkle appears to have conflated modern statist liberalism with libertariansim when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

Libertarian Defense Caucus National Co – Chairman, Mr. Kevin Bjornson, seeks to help Mr. Hinkle clear up any confusion in his response to a  ludicrously illogical LP ’press’ relase.

Co – Chairman Bjornson’s  refutation is follwed by the original LP press release.

Wes’ (or Mister X’s) letter points out the obvious; that if the LP
adopts categorical non-interventionism, we will tend to attract
more voters who favor non-interventionism. Since the Democrat
party leans more toward non-interventionism than the GOP
(or at least has that image), this LP strategy tends to siphon from
the Democrat base–thus helping elections of Republicans.

Left unexamined, is the premise that the LP has a duty to
help the GOP. Why should we help the party that is the
main force behind the anti-drugs war, and is about as
bad as Democrats on deficit spending? Why should we
help elect social conservatives?

Wes claims that Obama is spending a higher % of GDP on
military spending than Bush Jr. That maybe true, but is an
example of lying by statistics. Since the economy has shrunk,
military spending can rise as a relative %, while at the same time,
shrink in absolute terms. Let us hope our enemies feel pity for
the sorry state of our nation’s economy, and let up on their
attacks until our economy improves. Meanwhile, back in reality,
enemy attacks have increased (due to their cost-effective strategies
and increased oil prices).

If Wes’ first premise were true, that categorical non-interventionism
were a good policy, we should be running liber-hawks in order to siphon
votes from the GOP base, in order to help the election of Democrats.
But if his second premise were true, that Obama and the Democrats
were military spending hawks (more so than the Republicans),
this would contradict his third premise–that we should help elect
Republicans. In reality, all three Wes premises are factually false,
and internally inconsistent.

Thus Benedict and Hinkle have helped turn the LP into a madhouse.
But, let’s move on to look at the bigger picture.

Overthrowing of tyrants is a distinct and separate type of operation from
replacing them with “social democracy” or altruistic nation-building.
One can oppose the current occupation, without also opposing all
“interventions”.

The LP cannot logically be categorically anti-interventionist,
and also respect the US constitution. The US revolutionary war would
not have succeeded, absent French intervention. To oppose all interventions,
one would also have to oppose US entry into WWII. Tyrants would
have free reign to overthrow relatively free nations, picking them off
one at a time.

In any event, even if all US troops were withdrawn to within US borders,
Wes would still have them tax-supported. Likely under such a policy,
aggression would increase, and the cost of a war fought within US
borders would be much worse for the US economy/infrastructure–
than if we confronted our enemies in their foreign sanctuaries.
Instead of foreign civilian casualties, we would be hearing about
American civilian casualties.

The non-aggression principle does not require non-interventionism.
To “intervene” simply means, to take sides in a multi-party dispute.
Under categorical anti-interventionism, every person would have
to defend himself, and could not intervene to help others or seek
help for defense from others. Every man would be a defense island,
leading to a war of all against all.

Of course, brutes would not bind themselves to such a ridiculous principle,
and would be free to organize force against lone individuals (or by analogy,
against lone nations). The result would be a swift collapse of civilization,
and the reign of chaos and tyranny. To seriously propose either categorical
anti-interventionism or categorical interventionism, would be folly.
Every sane person is anti-war; but sometimes wars must be fought to
defend innocent life, liberty, and rightful property. Which Benedict and
Hinkle would know, if they had any idea of what a libertarian foreign
policy would look like.

Sincerely,
Kevin Bjornson
Libertarian Defense Caucus

Disclaimer:

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.